War and Civilization: Crash Course World History 205 

John MacDonald Rest In Peace

0:36

Thank you for serving this wonderful country sir!🇺🇸🇺🇸

That’s awesome!

Malos Kain Well, judging purely by the number of people involved in creating political decisions, it sadly was the purest democracy of all time. That says guite a lot about our "democracy."

Ján Ďuriník The number of people isn't even comparable. 5000+ Athenian men participating in democracy (the boule) vs. millions of people in western countries like the US, UK, Canada, etc. not to mention close to a billion participating in India.

But there are only few dozens of people who actually make decisions and in most countries, there is no way to change their will. Som what democracy are you talking about?

+Ján Ďuriník Same with Ancient Athens. A small handful of people would speak to the crowd and they would convince the crowd to vote for what they wanted them to vote for. What's different about that other than it's on a larger scale nowadays?

+Malos Kain I guess the rate of people involved in it? I have no clue about the number in Athens but less than 550 representatives in the two chambers of the USA for 300millions of citizens.. you know, I don't think Athens even ever passed tens thousands. Technically, it's "the purest democracy" in this sense.. clearly it did not involve women or slaves, so from that point of view is a much "worse" democracy..

They promised both kinds of booty.

booty booty booty rocking every way

Swiggity Swoogity I'm Coming for THat Boooty

You need the booty to get the bootie

the etymology of the word "hooker".

yea well, but if a nation provokes extreme nationalism making citizen think that they state is fighting to protect justice they might just buy it. i am definitely not talking about any particular nation.

There's already a lot on that elsewhere. Someone recently recommended to me "The Art of War." I would like to see Crash Course Military Strategies but I would rather have episodes such as this that has the effect of war on civilization.

While true, I think people are too quick to assume that a conflict between the US/NATO vs Russia or China will automatically go nuclear. I think we all recognize that as a bad idea. The problem with nuclear weapons is rogue states and potential terrorism. I doubt nuclear weapons will be EXCHANGED (not just fired but exchanged) in any likely potential conflict between the previously mentioned powers.

Not just that but the effectiveness of our current conventional arms and just how expensive it all is. Think about the recent wars in Iraq. Desert Storm saw us (the United States) fighting Saddam's Iraq which, at the time, was the 5th largest army in the world. Now, the size of the army isn't everything (and training played a huge part) and the US has a disproportionate advantage even over the guy at number 5 but it took us a week or so to demolish the Iraqi army. And without armor and air power it is simply suicide to cluster any number of infantry together. The introduction of hyper accurate weapons and the effectiveness of modern air power coupled with the cost of those weapons and equipment means that modern major powers in direct conflict would simply break their bank. To put it in perspective during WWII the United States built nearly 50,000 M4 Sherman tanks at a cost of about $33,500 each (which amounts to about $440,000 adjusting for inflation). A modern M1A2 Abrams tank costs the US about $4.4 million. So, not even factoring in the logistics costs of getting your army where they need to be, fuel (and getting that fuel there), and all of the behind the scenes operations just to get into a position to fight. The effectiveness of modern weapon systems and technology would lend itself to a few days of fighting and not enough money to be able to replace the equipment lost. In reality within the first few hours the winner of the air war would probably be pretty clear and that power ultimately ends up winning the actual war. (I should caveat this with assuming we mean war in the traditional terms of the conflict and not the urban counter-insurgent warfare that we predominately see today)

I agree that nuclear weapons, and there delivery systems, play a big roll in dissuading first world powers from direct conflict. But I do think what Green says still carries a lot of weight. Proxy wars could be a lot more prevalent than they are, and they're not, in part because it's better for everyone for the world to hum along smoothly.

OH MY GOD, I WANT YOUR AUTOGRAPH

In the event of a war between nuclear powers, there are two possible outcomes: 1) nuclear weapons are used, and devastation results, or 2) war between nuclear powers remains entirely conventional, and therefore nuclear weapons are not as effective as a deterrent against war as we thought. THESE ARE BOTH BAD OUTCOMES.

Yeah but as a Merchant Republic you don't have lots of manpower, so you have to hire lots of mercenaries ... Which is quite bad :p

Oh no! Six events in a month that tank republic tradition :(

No problem ! Let's turn into a glorious Dictatorship :D

Only if other nations trade with you. Some times you need to start a war to open trade.

Or you start a war to take some very valuables provinces, such as Constantinople :p

Y'know, I've noticed a whole lot of people that hate on america for having an "Empire". As far as I'm concerned, there is some truth to that statement. Although, as we can study from history, Empires rise and fall as time goes on. Rome fell. Egypt, too. And Mongolian. And Britain. And to a lesser extant, Germany. The evidence of fallen governments are all around us. So Britain, Germany, whoever, you had your time. So shut yer yap.

I'm open to the suggestion

Perhaps. Military history from a tactical point of view is rather interesting. Howver, there is an entire library of content on that matter already, available in non-partisan, neutral documentaries. Wanna watch some WW2 docos? Cold war IN DETAIL? I have a particular favorite channel for that, search youtube "vasile iuga battlefield" - this vasile guy uploaded and organized into playlists some very old documentaries from a time when the US produced actual documentaries

There is no such thing as neutrality in history. Bias appears in any narrative humans create.

well. HE JUST SAID NO MORE WAR!!!!!!

I'd imagine it's John from the past.

from the past

This is John from the Past. There may be a short break in Crash Course World History, as John is recovering. -stan

CrashCourse Get Well Soon!!

CrashCourse Thanks for you guys' work in making this content. I'm sure it's been pretty hectic with John sick.

"...O, it is excellent To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant."

what does racial diversity have to do with it, rome went to other countries and took power that why they were diverse, while the US is diverse because of people who wanted to go there

Louis Roberts thats 2 races, out of every race on earth that's in the US. Africans still move to the US to this day. you're talking about "modern empires" lets keep it on that topic....

The states are an empire

Technically, yes the U.S is an empire with our holdings in Guam and Puerto Rico and other places. CGP Grey did a video on this.

Oh yah! I forgot about that video. And thanks Internet for agreeing with me rather than starting a huge argument.

***** I totally agree with you there.

No emperor = No empire. Come up with another word you lazy fucks. France was a REPUBLIC until it assigned an EMPEROR in which it became the French EMPIRE.

***** You're right, but that seems to be the only difference. From Wikipedia, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples united and ruled by a central authority either by a monarch or an oligarchy.

Not the unsullied though

Yeah, they have a channel called "VlogBrothers", too.

8:36 Wealth is power... "Power is power." -Cersei Lannister

Yes

Yes. Yes it was.

Also Kratos from GoW is in the thumbnail, but I'm sure you saw that.

Deadpool on the Iron Throne as a matter of fact.

No make up is much more sexy for a woman. Thats why I like having my wife wear make up in public.

true.

Planes, tanks, bombs, nukes, guns, swords, the bow and arrow, boats, organized armies, siege machines, walls and forts, and targeted missiles, my friend, war does change

Id like to present the only person that doesn't get it.

+Ze Core Gamer It's a quote used in Fallout games. I'm too lazy to see if the quote originated from the games or from somewhere else. It is also meant in an abstract way.

+Gavin Foster (Yazneg) lmfao

The US economic size according to CIA world fact book is 25% roughly of the world economy for a total of 17.295 Trillion USD. The United States spends approximately 3.5-4% varying from year to year on its Military this is far lower to historical standards which used to be far higher. Also one this you have to reason is that the US military spending so much higher compared to everyone else because of one fact. SEA POWER the US controls the world's ocean and trade lanes for most part now right now the US is protecting for freedom of seas and all of that kind of stuff. But there's also simple logical Americans view the seas in mainly two ways one defense to foreign attack and trade. The US took control of the seas during the early 20th century dominating it on a scale not yet seen and as a result they also secured the trade routes and more trade routes leading to a massive economic boom. So now the USA spends that much militarily and maintains this capability because they now depend upon it if the US didnt control the seas it loses alot and powerful modern navy's are very expensive but it can afford it relatively compared to other nations due to its economic size.

Alex Baker I don't doubt that some notable portion of our military spending is put to good and productive use, but 800 billion is absolutely absurd. The entire navy is around 150, so even saying that there isn't a dollar wasted there doesn't get you anywhere legitimating the whole DoD. The fact that we can afford it doesn't make it money well spent. On top of that, our political system is so dysfunctional that the only way to push for reasonable restructuring and consolidation is to get people screaming that the whole thing should be shut down.

Our military spending compared to our GDP is only about ten to fifteen percent at most. That is about average for any first world nation.

kingofprussia17 It's around 4% of our gdp, which is also well above the percentage of about any other developed nation aside from Russia. China and the UK are both a little over 2% of GDP and the EU taken as a whole spends around 1.5%. The US should be well lower than the international average of defense spending as a percentage of GDP because (unless you count the entire EU as a single nation) it has the largest GDP by a huge margin. Cut the budget in half without even cutting personnel costs and we're still outspending everybody else.

Abraxian Absolution ", but 800 billion is absolutely absurd." That almost double the current military budget. Hell even 2 years ago it was still 600 billion, and it's even lower today, somewhere in the 500 billions(though we must wait a few years before exact figures are released).

Finally someone who isnt an america is an empire idiot.

lol, what are you doing in youtube? That post was entirely too coherent and sensible.

It would be better to attribute America to the Athenian centric Ancient Greece, or even Sparta, rather then Macedon or Persia.

dude they don't care about facts they just use any excuse to bitch about Americans. i mean shit, brits make fun of our obesity problem yet they're only 5% away from us. they'll complain about pathetic shit, one guy tried making fun of me for being an American because Americans drive a lot of automatic cars rather than stick shifts. the world has a sick obsession with the US

The USA has military bases in 38 countries, and spends 700 billion dollars a year on machines of deat- sorry liberty, while tens of thousands of its people are dieing from lack of healthcare, tens of millions are on food stamps or welfare, while the 0.1 percent of americans have more wealth than the bottem 90%, and while taxes on the rich are around 15%. Thats an empire for you, a state that is designed to steal And the USA has invaded and messed with other states affairs for half a century now.

+Dhart M Ahmed No he lost.

It's not an empire yet. We're not taxing other countries, in fact America pays them to have bases there.

They can always turn it down.

Kolin Martz Yes I'm sure US would respect their wishes and not ever punish them for rejecting their offer.

Kolin Martz ...If empire measure by taxing, U.S. rule most parts of the world.

***** Nope, they don't. Period. They might and probably will if its a European nation but to the countries of the Global South - nope. Other countries hate the US not only because of their military influence but also because of their economic imperialism.

The ancient Greeks were amazing, but they were dogshit compared to Rome.

It kinda was. It was much closer to democracy than what we have today as even though only a smaller portion of the population got to vote(free men over 30) they voted on everything directly rather than voting to elect a person or a group of people to do the decisions for them.

It's kind of funny about Greece. They conquered the Persians, and then were themselves conquered by the Romans, but in both these cases, the cultures of the conquered (Persians and then the Greeks) actually influenced the victorious culture at least as much as the opposite. Like Alexander the Great made the his capital at Babylon rather than in Pella, and adopted many Persian customs. And in the Roman Repubic and late Empire, Greek was the major trade language that everyone spoke, rather than Latin. So the Romans did conquer the Greeks but maybe the Greeks really won? At least in some ways.

+Dovahkiin Dragonshout This is a very good point that was missed, well done pointing that out.

+Dovahkiin Dragonshout It happens, sure. But what about the things that happen without war? TV first existed in the 20s. Not much war happening there. There are other examples, but I can't recall....

"The origins of all advertisement, all mass communications have their foundations in war" - Chris Hedges

War also had a positive effect on women's rights. WWI and WWII removed vast amounts of working men from their home countries, which created a Labor vacuum. In many places, women stepped in to fill this vacuum, which increased many women's sense of competence and independence and built up the backing for the feminist movement.

St G Do you mean religion? All the religions with omnipresent beings seem to believe their gods have been around.. You know, forever.

These are great videos, but Green clearly doesn't understand Anarchism and the unnecessary existence of government.

Liberty can not exist with a government, because the sole purpose of a government and state is to limit liberty as much as possible.

As Tiberius was want to say " It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." The often trotted out trope of all states being evil falls as most absolutes will.

John Green... I don't appreciate your mocking of Vladimir Putin. Please stop or I'll be forced to place sanctions upon your RU-vid channel(s)

all hail

kenneth mcgriff propaganda is when the giv disseminates

you got that

Propaganda isn't exclusively when states push a narrative. Like terrorism, whether states do it or non-state actors do it the definition is the same. A People's History is not wrong and bad because it's propaganda. It's a perspective with a strong factual basis. The worst that can be said about it is that it is one of many perspectives each with a strong factual basis, and it should not be treated as the only true story that can be told about those facts.

+hippoheppo OH MY GOD.

SPOILERS: Some people might have preferred that ending! Lol

Not really.

diego alveal One example please of a country that doesn't and how, please.

my guess is that you never have been in a dictatorship.

the usa government doesn't rule by force.

diego alveal The goverment uses the police for their force.

What imperial ambitions does the US have?

MrLgmhandler Seriously?

Gabs Rants What?

John's concept of Empire is a state or ethnic/social group or people ruling directly over others. The contrary concept is the democratic national state, meaning one people governs itself. The US Imperialism is more about keeping other nations in control and on your side, mostly by economic and political pressure. Russia allways has been an empire and the post 1990 Russian Confederation hasn't become what we call a national state, if you for example consider the Chechnya conflict. What Putin does is military empire bulding, mostly because he hasn't the political and economic power of the USA and can't force other countrys to do what he wants without his military or gas.

I dont see people protesting in the streets for independence of Crimea, Putin kinda protected the people in Crimea...